Litigator / Practicing Attorney (US)

$80–140/hrrate as listed

micro1 recruits licensed US attorneys with active litigation practice to evaluate and correct AI-generated legal analysis, drafting, and case reasoning. Work is project-based and remote, with observed rates of $80–140/hr depending on practice area and depth of screening performance.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

You review model outputs against the standard you'd apply to a junior associate's work product. Typical tasks include grading competing responses to litigation prompts (motion arguments, discovery objections, removal analysis, statute-of-limitations questions), rewriting flawed answers into something you'd actually file or send to a client, and writing short rationales that explain exactly where the model's reasoning broke — a fabricated citation, a misapplied standard of review, a jurisdictional rule stated as if it were universal. Some projects ask you to author prompts drawn from real litigation problems, with a gold-standard answer and the authorities that support it.

The hardest part is usually calibration, not legal knowledge. Model answers are often fluent and superficially plausible; the value you add is catching the confident error and articulating why it matters — whether it's outcome-determinative or merely inelegant. Reviewers who write "incorrect" without a citation and a specific correction do not last long on these projects.

What the platform screens for

Verifiable licensure. Bar number, admitting jurisdiction, active status. Expect this to be checked.
Actual litigation experience. Screens probe for specifics: motions you've briefed, courts you've appeared in, procedural postures you've handled. Generic "I do civil litigation" answers stall the interview.
Depth under follow-up. micro1's AI interviewer asks a legal question, then pushes on your answer — jurisdictional variation, the counterargument, what changes the outcome.
Evaluation judgment. Can you distinguish a wrong answer from an incomplete one, and rank two imperfect answers with a defensible reason?
Written clarity. Rationales are the deliverable. Precision matters more than volume.

Logistics

Fully remote and largely asynchronous, with work claimed from task queues rather than assigned shifts. Most contributors treat it as 5–15 hours per week alongside practice, though project ramps sometimes offer more. Engagements are 1099 contractor arrangements, project-scoped, and can pause between client cycles. Confirm any conflict-of-interest and outside-work obligations with your firm before onboarding, and assume NDA coverage on project content. Pay bands reflect rates contributors have reported; they are not guaranteed and vary by specialty and project tier.

What they look for

Legal Reasoning
Litigation & Practice Expertise
Analytical Rigor
Calibration in Ambiguous Cases
Legal Writing
Communication Precision

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Are you currently licensed to practice law and in active, good standing with a US state bar, with no suspension or disciplinary action pending?
Active bar license (US) · required
Have you drafted, filed, or argued motions or other substantial litigation documents in US courts within the last three years?
Litigation experience · required
Are you able to confirm with your firm (if applicable) any conflicts of interest or outside-work restrictions that would affect your ability to work as a 1099 contractor on confidential legal evaluation projects?
Conflict check · preferred
Are you able to commit to 5–15 hours per week on average, with flexibility for asynchronous work and potential project pauses between client cycles?
Availability commitment · preferred

0 of 4 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 10 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether you've done substantive motion practice and can recall specifics without vagueness: the legal standard, the factual record you worked from, the jurisdiction's rules. Vague answers ('I wrote motions') signal you may not have the depth to spot model errors.
A strong answer: Name the motion type, the specific legal standard that governed it (citing the rule or case), the key facts or evidence you relied on, and the outcome or procedural posture that followed. One real example is enough.
Where people lose it: Describing motions in general terms ('summary judgment is about genuine disputes of fact') instead of one you actually wrote. Saying 'my firm handled it' without explaining your role. Forgetting the specific standard or getting it wrong when pressed on what rule you applied.